re: #590 Buck

Part of what you say makes sense, but there is a point at which “loyal opposition” becomes obstructionism for its own sake.

For example, the science on global warming is now very clear. There is really no need to oppose the science. There is value in debating which policies would be best to try to reverse the current trend, but there is no point in taking the King Canute position.

It’s also interesting that you mention debating as a pursuit. The main reason I got out of competitive debating was precisely the smugness of the guys (almost always guys) who could indeed “take any position”. If you don’t believe what you’re arguing for, it debases the whole point of having a debate in the first place.